Would you believe the Earth was a sphere if you saw it from space?

Pretty simple question. If you (a flat earth believer) jumped into a rocket and went to the ISS. Would you believe the Earth was a sphere if you saw a sphere from the ISS?

Pretty simple question. If you (a flat earth believer) jumped into a rocket and went to the ISS. Would you believe the Earth was a sphere if you saw a sphere from the ISS?

The alleged ISS is not that high. What you see of the Earth below could be part of a convex disc

Some people may also question whether the windows of the station were actually advanced CGI screens

Quote from: franix on November 22, 2019, 03:48:37 AM

Pretty simple question. If you (a flat earth believer) jumped into a rocket and went to the ISS. Would you believe the Earth was a sphere if you saw a sphere from the ISS?

The alleged ISS is not that high. What you see of the Earth below could be part of a convex disc

Some people may also question whether the windows of the station were actually advanced CGI screens

I was hoping someone would say something about the windows at the ISS. What if they were spacewalking then, maybe even further away from earth? Basically just trying to figure out how they could be convinced that the earth was round instead of being flat.

Quote from: Shifter on November 22, 2019, 03:53:04 AM

Quote from: franix on November 22, 2019, 03:48:37 AM

Pretty simple question. If you (a flat earth believer) jumped into a rocket and went to the ISS. Would you believe the Earth was a sphere if you saw a sphere from the ISS?

The alleged ISS is not that high. What you see of the Earth below could be part of a convex disc

Some people may also question whether the windows of the station were actually advanced CGI screens

I was hoping someone would say something about the windows at the ISS. What if they were spacewalking then, maybe even further away from earth? Basically just trying to figure out how they could be convinced that the earth was round instead of being flat.

The helmet visor could also be a CGI screen. They would have to take it off just to be sure. The lack of gravity could be replicated like they do on planes.

or simply the technology companies like NASA and especially the government have are probably far more advanced then what is available to the public. They always need to make sure they are steps ahead of us to maintain control.

Quote from: franix on November 22, 2019, 03:55:37 AM

Quote from: Shifter on November 22, 2019, 03:53:04 AM

Quote from: franix on November 22, 2019, 03:48:37 AM

Pretty simple question. If you (a flat earth believer) jumped into a rocket and went to the ISS. Would you believe the Earth was a sphere if you saw a sphere from the ISS?

The alleged ISS is not that high. What you see of the Earth below could be part of a convex disc

Some people may also question whether the windows of the station were actually advanced CGI screens

I was hoping someone would say something about the windows at the ISS. What if they were spacewalking then, maybe even further away from earth? Basically just trying to figure out how they could be convinced that the earth was round instead of being flat.

The helmet visor could also be a CGI screen. They would have to take it off just to be sure. The lack of gravity could be replicated like they do on planes.

or simply the technology companies like NASA and especially the government have are probably far more advanced then what is available to the public. They always need to make sure they are steps ahead of us to maintain control.

What if you build your own rocket, with your own windows that you made yourself from whatever. Then shot yourself up to space, saw the round earth. Would you be convinced? Or does NASA own some sort of teleporting gun that just teleports you into a simulation of a round earth?

Quote from: Shifter on November 22, 2019, 04:17:48 AM

Quote from: franix on November 22, 2019, 03:55:37 AM

Quote from: Shifter on November 22, 2019, 03:53:04 AM

Quote from: franix on November 22, 2019, 03:48:37 AM

Pretty simple question. If you (a flat earth believer) jumped into a rocket and went to the ISS. Would you believe the Earth was a sphere if you saw a sphere from the ISS?

The alleged ISS is not that high. What you see of the Earth below could be part of a convex disc

Some people may also question whether the windows of the station were actually advanced CGI screens

I was hoping someone would say something about the windows at the ISS. What if they were spacewalking then, maybe even further away from earth? Basically just trying to figure out how they could be convinced that the earth was round instead of being flat.

The helmet visor could also be a CGI screen. They would have to take it off just to be sure. The lack of gravity could be replicated like they do on planes.

or simply the technology companies like NASA and especially the government have are probably far more advanced then what is available to the public. They always need to make sure they are steps ahead of us to maintain control.

What if you build your own rocket, with your own windows that you made yourself from whatever. Then shot yourself up to space, saw the round earth. Would you be convinced? Or does NASA own some sort of teleporting gun that just teleports you into a simulation of a round earth?

I guess if you built it yourself that could work. There was one guy that was going to attempt it but got laughed at (plus his rocket was never even going to go higher than a plane anyway lol)

If you went through the trouble of building it yourself, why wouldn't you be open to the possibility the Earth is a globe? Would you go through all that trouble just to confirm your confirmation bias regardless of what you see?

Pretty simple question. If you (a flat earth believer) jumped into a rocket and went to the ISS. Would you believe the Earth was a sphere if you saw a sphere from the ISS?

Absolutely.
Now all we have to do is get to do that.
What's the chances?

I wish I'd win the lottery or something. I'd get Sargent one of them bismuth casings for the gyroscope.

Quote from: franix on November 22, 2019, 03:48:37 AM

Pretty simple question. If you (a flat earth believer) jumped into a rocket and went to the ISS. Would you believe the Earth was a sphere if you saw a sphere from the ISS?

Absolutely.
Now all we have to do is get to do that.
What's the chances?

I'd say getting better and better each year.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 22, 2019, 04:58:30 AM

Quote from: franix on November 22, 2019, 03:48:37 AM

Pretty simple question. If you (a flat earth believer) jumped into a rocket and went to the ISS. Would you believe the Earth was a sphere if you saw a sphere from the ISS?

Absolutely.
Now all we have to do is get to do that.
What's the chances?

I'd say getting better and better each year.

If a flat earther was invited on such a trip of a lifetime, one would wonder if there was a conspiracy to eliminate them. Grab a whole bunch of people you dont like, gift them a trip and oh dear, the shuttle exploded. Accidents happen I guess

Unless you were on the same ship as VIPs you should forget going on one. More than likely you will only return as ash

The helmet visor could also be a CGI screen. They would have to take it off just to be sure

I'm pretty sure that no astronaut would be willing to sacrifice themselves just to prove the Earth is not flat!

It seems to me that flat Earthers will conjure up any 'what if' scenario just to avoid having to admit that the Earth is not actually flat.

Check this out from exactly 11m26s and then particular note of what is said at 11m51sec.  Then compare the RE and FE approach.  I will leave you to decide which description describes FE best.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 22, 2019, 04:58:30 AM

Quote from: franix on November 22, 2019, 03:48:37 AM

Pretty simple question. If you (a flat earth believer) jumped into a rocket and went to the ISS. Would you believe the Earth was a sphere if you saw a sphere from the ISS?

Absolutely.
Now all we have to do is get to do that.
What's the chances?

I'd say getting better and better each year.

Yep, by the spin of the media it's a mixture of all kinds of luxuries at knockdown prices.
Hitch a ride on an outdated soyuz with a return via a cone and parachute, plus heat plated bottom to always land in barren wasteland yet close enough to a pre set up hospital tent where you're still carried in your chair, to.

Or you can jump aboard a special virgin super space traveller which will soon be ready every year until it's next ready year and so on.
The price is coming down though due to new fuels and lighter space buses and what not, eh?

I'd say the ordinary person is about as close to a travel in the sky as they've always been. Easyjet and what not airlines have solved that one.

Higher into space?
That's about as feasible for the ordinary person to get to as a chocolate fireguard remaining solid with that fire on max heat.

It's not out of bounds for the actors and actresses though. They will all travel into space in these fantastic machines.
Some will likely skim  mars before they about turn and skim earth's atmosphere again and slingshot onto the moon to give the old LM's a quick dusting down, using specially made vacuum leggings, boob tube and beany hat.

Yep, it's all getting easier.
Any story can be made to be anything.
I can even have goldilocks ransack the 3 bears' house rather than eat their porridge.
I can even have the bears come home and catch goldilocks ransacking their home and have them barbecue her whilst baby bear scrapes the porridge into the bin, ready to fill the bowls up with goldicok chops.


Basically speaking, you saying it's getting easier is simply you reading the story and regurgitating it without any physical proof.....at all.

Quote

The helmet visor could also be a CGI screen. They would have to take it off just to be sure

I'm pretty sure that no astronaut would be willing to sacrifice themselves just to prove the Earth is not flat!

It seems to me that flat Earthers will conjure up any 'what if' scenario just to avoid having to admit that the Earth is not actually flat.

Doesn't that go for globe earthers?....Oh wait, you don't have to conjure up anything. It's all laid out for you. All ironed and without supposed creases, until alternate theorists ruffle them up.

Do they screen flat earthers nowadays? Not against it, but have not heard that from my (reptilian) superiors.

Doesn't that go for globe earthers?....Oh wait, you don't have to conjure up anything. It's all laid out for you. All ironed and without supposed creases, until alternate theorists ruffle them up.

I don't know of anybody on the RE side who has been 'ruffled' by FE. That is because so far nothing presented by FE has been strong enough evidence to cause any ruffling. FE is more on the level of an ideology rather than a viable model alternative to RE.  FE is not being helped by the outlandish and ridiculous claims being made by certain members that reside on that side of the fence as it were.

I would also deny that everything for globe earthers is 'all laid out for us'. Its more a case we use common sense to interpret what see and experience around us and develop a model which best fits that rather than starting off with a basic pre-assertion (i.e. we believe the Earth is flat because it looks flat) and then try and make what we see and experience fit that pre-assertion.

No pre-assertions are made in global earth theory and if any observation or experiment suggests part our model or theory is wrong we investigate that on its merits and decide whether we need to modify things.  That has been done many times over the years. It's called learning from research.  The only modification that I can see that FE theorists have made is to move from a monopole model to a bi-polar model. And that seems more like a reversion back towards RE theory to me. i.e an acknowledgement that the Earth does actually have two poles.

FE is a belief system.

EDIT: FE can't even settle on a model. Only thing they have in common is "it ain't a globe".

Quote

Doesn't that go for globe earthers?....Oh wait, you don't have to conjure up anything. It's all laid out for you. All ironed and without supposed creases, until alternate theorists ruffle them up.

I don't know of anybody on the RE side who has been 'ruffled' by FE. That is because so far nothing presented by FE has been strong enough evidence to cause any ruffling. FE is more on the level of an ideology rather than a viable model alternative to RE.  FE is not being helped by the outlandish and ridiculous claims being made by certain members that reside on that side of the fence as it were.

I would also deny that everything for globe earthers is 'all laid out for us'. Its more a case we use common sense to interpret what see and experience around us and develop a model which best fits that rather than starting off with a basic pre-assertion (i.e. we believe the Earth is flat because it looks flat) and then try and make what we see and experience fit that pre-assertion.

No pre-assertions are made in global earth theory and if any observation or experiment suggests part our model or theory is wrong we investigate that on its merits and decide whether we need to modify things.  That has been done many times over the years. It's called learning from research.  The only modification that I can see that FE theorists have made is to move from a monopole model to a bi-polar model. And that seems more like a reversion back towards RE theory to me. i.e an acknowledgement that the Earth does actually have two poles.

But here you all are, globe earth knowers that seem to have to keep on clarifying it's a globe to supposed nutters who believe otherwise.

Now...to me.... it means, either, people like yourself are genuinely inquisitive and feel there something in alternate theories to a global earth, or you are here to merely ridicule and show anyone who is interested just how clever you are at following a narrative without proof and then following another narrative of media hype that implores people like yourself to do your utmost to try and ridicule what is not to be followed.


One or the other.

If it's the latter then it makes me wonder who is wasting their time on here.

FE is a belief system.

EDIT: FE can't even settle on a model. Only thing they have in common is "it ain't a globe".

Global Earth is a forced belief system.

Quote from: rvlvr on November 22, 2019, 06:18:33 AM

FE is a belief system.

EDIT: FE can't even settle on a model. Only thing they have in common is "it ain't a globe".

Global Earth is a forced belief system.

Yet it works far better FE can cough up.

Now...to me.... it means, either, people like yourself are genuinely inquisitive and feel there something in alternate theories to a global earth, or you are here to merely ridicule and show anyone who is interested just how clever you are at following a narrative without proof and then following another narrative of media hype that implores people like yourself to do your utmost to try and ridicule what is not to be followed.

The trouble with you flat earth believers is that you are obsesses with proof.  Proof has got nothing to do with it. Science not about proving anything. Rather it is about working to find the best way to describe and account for how nature works. I wouldn't expect everyone to accept a single mainstream theory of everything but those who seek to develop alternative theories because they are not satisfied with the mainstream line must be willing to explain how their alternatives are verifiable and work better. You can't honestly tell me that a theory that claims the Sun and Moon are just 32 miles across and 3000 miles away is not open to a certain degree of doubt? Or indeed that Antarctica is actually an 'ice wall' which no one has ever actually seen somehow prevents the oceans from falling off the edge. I read through FE Wiki and soon find myself thinking '... hmmmm I don't think that is quite right'.

I am completely open to hearing about alternative theories. I wanted to learn more about what FE theory is all about so I could decide for myself whether it represents a serious challenge to conventional thinking.  So far I have not discovered any aspect of FE which tells me it is.  Most discussions, and this will probably turn out no different end up as verbal bickering matches like school kids arguing in the playground rather than meaningful debate that reach an agreed objective consensus or conclusion.

The last thing I will say in this particular discussion is that it concerns me how FE theory seems to be broadly based on what I would call ancient beliefs about the heavens and Earth. Back then it was more logical that people would see the Earth as flat because they had no evidence available to them to show them it isn't. Science has moved on since then and we now have much more and much better access to evidence that shows us what the shape of the Earth is and we have measured it very accurately.  I have to hand the 2020 edition of the BAA Handbook which quotes the equatorial radius of the Earth as 6,378,136.6m and the polar radius as 6,356,751.9m. Polar flattening ratio (oblateness) is 0.0033528197. Now those are figures you simply couldn't make up. It also shows that the Earth would be flat IF it rotated a heck of a lot faster than it does.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 22, 2019, 07:45:48 AM

Quote from: rvlvr on November 22, 2019, 06:18:33 AM

FE is a belief system.

EDIT: FE can't even settle on a model. Only thing they have in common is "it ain't a globe".

Global Earth is a forced belief system.

Yet it works far better FE can cough up.

It only works because magical notions have been attached to it to make it appear it works.
Any rational minded person who is bothered enough to see into the nonsense will eventually sit back and feel gutted that they were duped for all the time they believed it.

Nah, man. One model works. The rest less so.

EDIT: Rational ain't Venus 15 kilometers away.

Quote from: rvlvr on November 22, 2019, 06:18:33 AM

FE is a belief system.

EDIT: FE can't even settle on a model. Only thing they have in common is "it ain't a globe".

Global Earth is a forced belief system.

No, the Global Earth is a system developed from observations and measurements performed from around 500 BC to say 1100 AD. Nothing was forced on anyone.
That Global Earth was assumed to be stationary because that explained most of what was observed and the Heliocentric Solar System came later.

Look how "the early English monk, theologian and historian, the Venerable Bede (673–735)" described this:

We call the earth a globe, not as if the shape of a sphere were expressed in the diversity of plains and mountains, but because, if all things are included in the outline, the earth’s circumference will represent the figure of a perfect globe. … For truly it is an orb placed in the centre of the universe; in its width, it is like a circle, and not circular like a shield but rather like a ball, and it extends from its centre with perfect roundness on all sides.

From his book On the Reckoning of Time (De temporum ratione).

And before the period from Copernicus to Kepler and Newton most believed that the Earth was a stationary Globe at the centre of the Universe.

Up until the mid-1800s, few in Europe and probably the Middle East and India thought the Earth to be flat.

The current flat Earth ideas are comparatively modern but there is no single Flat Earth System. Rowbotham came up with his ideas but he made numerous mistakes and straight out errors of fact.

Current flat Earthers are a group who for some reason or other, possibly seeing that the horizon looking flat, choose to ignore much of science, even on the 1800s.

But having come to believe that the Earth is flat simply cannot come up with any single model that explains even the simplest things about what we observe.
As a result, there are a plethora of quite different flat Earth models with many different:
     continental layouts (maps),
     paths of the Sun, Moon, planets and stars,
     explanations of why objects get "hidden" by "something" with the most extreme "hidden objects" being the Sun, Moon, planets and Stars,
     explanations of space flights and satellites
     and more recently, explanations of many long-distance aircraft flights and polar circumnavigation.

A common explanation of many of these things is to simply deny them and claim that millions are lying to the rest of the world "to hide the true shape of the Earth".

So flat-Earthers come up with one "model" and one "Map" that work and people might listen but until then you are "Whistling in the wind!".

Current flat Earthers are a group who for some reason or other, possibly seeing that the horizon looking flat, choose to ignore much of science, even on the 1800s.

Of course the horizon looks flat.  That's because it is flat. The reason for that is quite obvious when you think about how someone at ground level will perceive a surface which is curved by the same amount (as in a sphere) in all directions. The horizon is the limiting point of direct visibility and will be the same distance away in all directions. Hence the horizon looks to be flat to an observer.

Quote

Current flat Earthers are a group who for some reason or other, possibly seeing that the horizon looking flat, choose to ignore much of science, even on the 1800s.

Of course the horizon looks flat.  That's because it is flat. The reason for that is quite obvious when you think about how someone at ground level will perceive a surface which is curved by the same amount (as in a sphere) in all directions. The horizon is the limiting point of direct visibility and will be the same distance away in all directions. Hence the horizon looks to be flat to an observer.

But try to convince a flat-Earther of that!

The only proofs most flat-Earthers give for the Earth being flat is that the cannot (or refuse to) understand the Globe.

Well that's their problem not ours.

You only have to imagine a microbe sitting on the surface of a snooker ball.  Perfectly round and spherical as we all know. But the microbe will only be able to see a tiny fraction of the surface of the ball. By proportion about the same tiny fraction of the Earths surface that we see directly. The amount of curvature apparent will be negligible. Hence to them (and us) the surface of the ball or Earth looks flat.

As flat Earthers are often claiming: ignorance of the truth is no excuse. Perhaps they should practice what they preach.

Well that's their problem not ours.

You only have to imagine a microbe sitting on the surface of a snooker ball.  Perfectly round and spherical as we all know. But the microbe will only be able to see a tiny fraction of the surface of the ball. By proportion about the same tiny fraction of the Earths surface that we see directly. The amount of curvature apparent will be negligible. Hence to them (and us) the surface of the ball or Earth looks flat.

As flat Earthers are often claiming: ignorance of the truth is no excuse. Perhaps they should practice what they preach.

So let's not see nonsense like this, because it certainly does not help those who push this global spinning nonsense.

Quote from: Nucleosynthesis on November 22, 2019, 02:58:29 PM

Well that's their problem not ours.

You only have to imagine a microbe sitting on the surface of a snooker ball.  Perfectly round and spherical as we all know. But the microbe will only be able to see a tiny fraction of the surface of the ball. By proportion about the same tiny fraction of the Earths surface that we see directly. The amount of curvature apparent will be negligible. Hence to them (and us) the surface of the ball or Earth looks flat.

As flat Earthers are often claiming: ignorance of the truth is no excuse. Perhaps they should practice what they preach.

So let's not see nonsense like this, because it certainly does not help those who push this global spinning nonsense.

Before ignorantly ridiculing that photo please find out the lens used on the camera!
I suspect that you'll find it's a 180° fish-eye lens and it's really showing only part of the Globe!

A few minutes research would reveal this:
"A super wide angle photo of planet Earth seen through the new cupola observing station in the ISS. It was taken this past Friday. Credit: Soichi Noguchi/NASA"

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 22, 2019, 03:29:16 PM

Quote from: Nucleosynthesis on November 22, 2019, 02:58:29 PM

Well that's their problem not ours.

You only have to imagine a microbe sitting on the surface of a snooker ball.  Perfectly round and spherical as we all know. But the microbe will only be able to see a tiny fraction of the surface of the ball. By proportion about the same tiny fraction of the Earths surface that we see directly. The amount of curvature apparent will be negligible. Hence to them (and us) the surface of the ball or Earth looks flat.

As flat Earthers are often claiming: ignorance of the truth is no excuse. Perhaps they should practice what they preach.

So let's not see nonsense like this, because it certainly does not help those who push this global spinning nonsense.

Before ignorantly ridiculing that photo please find out the lens used on the camera!
I suspect that you'll find it's a 180° fish-eye lens and it's really showing only part of the Globe!

A few minutes research would reveal this:
"A super wide angle photo of planet Earth seen through the new cupola observing station in the ISS. It was taken this past Friday. Credit: Soichi Noguchi/NASA"

It's showing a full circle or a full supposed globe and it's showing it from inside this supposed cupola.
The picture is clear nonsense and is a massive error that's being explained b y the nonsense wide angled lens carry on.

There's no getting out of this. It's a mistake and cannot be undone.

Quote from: rabinoz on November 22, 2019, 04:03:50 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 22, 2019, 03:29:16 PM

Quote from: Nucleosynthesis on November 22, 2019, 02:58:29 PM

Well that's their problem not ours.

You only have to imagine a microbe sitting on the surface of a snooker ball.  Perfectly round and spherical as we all know. But the microbe will only be able to see a tiny fraction of the surface of the ball. By proportion about the same tiny fraction of the Earths surface that we see directly. The amount of curvature apparent will be negligible. Hence to them (and us) the surface of the ball or Earth looks flat.

As flat Earthers are often claiming: ignorance of the truth is no excuse. Perhaps they should practice what they preach.

So let's not see nonsense like this, because it certainly does not help those who push this global spinning nonsense.

Before ignorantly ridiculing that photo please find out the lens used on the camera!
I suspect that you'll find it's a 180° fish-eye lens and it's really showing only part of the Globe!

A few minutes research would reveal this:
"A super wide angle photo of planet Earth seen through the new cupola observing station in the ISS. It was taken this past Friday. Credit: Soichi Noguchi/NASA"

It's showing a full circle or a full supposed globe and it's showing it from inside this supposed cupola.
The picture is clear nonsense and is a massive error that's being explained b y the nonsense wide angled lens carry on.

There's no getting out of this. It's a mistake and cannot be undone.

It's more than a mistake. It's deliberately deceptive. It's disgusting